On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:44:36AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > Corinna, > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:07:28PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > > > Was this the right thing to do? > > > > The patch isn't correct since it now calls fdsock() twice which allocates > > a new fhandler even if the line before already had created one. > > > > Better: > > > > fhandler_socket* res_fh = fdsock (fd, name, soc)->set_addr_family (af); > > if (af == AF_LOCAL) > > res_fh->set_sun_path (name); > > Oops, I thought that the second call would only return a pointer to the > previously created fhandler. > > > However, I don't understand the need for that patch. Does postgresql > > call getsockname() before calling bind()? > > I don't know, but I guess that it does. > > > So, IMO, the correct way is to clean up cygwin_getsockname() > > so that it always returns "something" instead of SEGVing. > > > > Could you please test the below patch if that works with postgresql? > > The above works great!
Thanks for the quick reply. I've checked it in. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
